LV Europe Updated 2026-08-20

Latvia Geothermal Screening

Geothermal screening assessment identifies 5.4% prospective land reaching 185°C by 5.5 km depth in Latvia.

Key Geothermal Metrics

Land Reaching 185°C by 5.5 km Low Prospect
5.4%

Primary baseline screening criterion

Shallowest Depth to 200°C Deep Target
6 km

Minimum drill depth for high enthalpy

Peak Temperature at 5 km Depth Direct Heat
163.5 °C

Maximum modeled temperature

Typical Geothermal Gradient Continental Normal
25.4 °C/km

Average to 5 km depth (15°C surface)

Grid Connectable Prospective Area Moderate Distance
61.1%

Hot territory within 50 km transmission

Stored Heat In-Place (3–7 km) 1 ZJ = 10²¹ Joules
23.3 ZJ

Thermal volume in place (>80°C baseline)

Depth vs. Temperature Matrix (% Land Area)

Proportion of national territory exceeding target isotherm at specified depth

0.1° Inversion Grid
Isotherm 3.0 km 4.0 km 5.0 km 6.0 km 7.0 km 8.0 km
150°C 0.7% 1.5% 2% 2.8% 3.5% 4.9%
175°C 0.4% 0.8% 1.2% 1.6% 2.3% 2.5%
200°C 0.2% 0.3% 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.9%
225°C
250°C

4-Stage Geothermal Resource & Infrastructure Funnel

Progressive screening from gross national territory down to grid-connected & populated prospective zones

1 Whole country
64 589 km² 100%
2 Reaches 185°C by 5.5 km
3 488 km² 5.4%
3 ...and within 50 km transmission
2 131 km² 3.3%
4 ...and within 100 km town
1 974 km² 3.1%

Geological Setting & Subsurface Parameters

Lithology, basement thickness, stress and thermal boundary constraints

Median Depth to 200°C Isotherm 8.5 km
Best 10th Percentile Depth to 200°C 6.8 km
Median Temperature at 5 km Depth 109.9 °C
Best 10th Percentile Temp at 5 km 149.5 °C
Median Sediment Thickness 0.2 km
Sediment / Hard-Rock Well Share 32.7%
Territory Under 1 km Sediment Cover 72.1%
Lithostatic Pressure at 5 km Depth 131.6 MPa
Moho Crustal Discontinuity Depth 39.6 km
Thermal Lithosphere Thickness 117.2 km
Curie Temperature Isotherm Depth 31.7 km
Model Temperature Spread Uncertainty (200°C) ±1.2 km

Transmission Grid & Demand Colocation

Infrastructure interconnectivity and urban power demand proximity

High-Voltage Transmission Network Length 5 676 km
Land Area Within 25 km of Grid 48.3%
Land Area Within 50 km of Grid 61.1%
Land Area Within 100 km of Grid 67.6%
Average Proximity to Nearest Substation / Line 20.2 km
Urban Centers (>10,000 Population) 78
Total Urban Population 11.4 M
Prospective Resource Colocated Near Demand (>1M Pop) 36.5%

Target Sensitivity & Deep EGS Upside

Sensitivity of prospective resource area to adjusted depth and temperature thresholds

150°C Baseline at 5.5 km 8.6% of national territory reaches 150°C at 5.5 km depth
185°C Baseline at 7.5 km 9.7% of national territory reaches 185°C at 7.5 km depth

Global Peer Benchmarking (vs. 278 Assessed Jurisdictions)

Relative ranking distribution of Latvia across 11 standardized geothermal indicators

Latvia Rank Global Peer Spread
Shallowest 200°C depth
6 km Lower 50%
P0 (Lowest) P50 (Median) P100 (Highest) • 29th percentile
Peak temp at 5 km
163.5 °C Lower 50%
P0 (Lowest) P50 (Median) P100 (Highest) • 25th percentile
Prospective land area (>185°C at 5.5 km)
5.4% Lower 25%
P0 (Lowest) P50 (Median) P100 (Highest) • 9th percentile
Stored heat in-place (3-7 km)
23.3 ZJ Lower 50%
P0 (Lowest) P50 (Median) P100 (Highest) • 43th percentile
Typical geothermal gradient
25.4 °C/km Lower 50%
P0 (Lowest) P50 (Median) P100 (Highest) • 36th percentile
Grid proximity (<50 km)
61.1% Middle 50%
P0 (Lowest) P50 (Median) P100 (Highest) • 61th percentile
Thin sediment coverage (<1 km)
72.1% Middle 50%
P0 (Lowest) P50 (Median) P100 (Highest) • 72th percentile
Curie isotherm depth
31.7 km Lower 50%
P0 (Lowest) P50 (Median) P100 (Highest) • 30th percentile
Moho crustal thickness
39.6 km Lower 50%
P0 (Lowest) P50 (Median) P100 (Highest) • 29th percentile
Model temperature uncertainty spread
±1.3 km Middle 50%
P0 (Lowest) P50 (Median) P100 (Highest) • 46th percentile
Urban demand colocation
70.1% Top 25%
P0 (Lowest) P50 (Median) P100 (Highest) • 75th percentile
Asset-Level 3D Simulation Available

Need Interactive 3D Spatial Inversion for Latvia?

High-resolution 3D temperature cubes, localized Curie depth inversions, fault network stress tensors, and drilling capex curves for Latvia are accessible through our Premium & Enterprise subscription tiers.

Direct Founder Contact: founders@geothermalradar.com

Analytical Geothermal Assessment & Discussion: Latvia

Subsurface thermal interpretation, model uncertainty, infrastructure colocation, and resource quality analysis

Resource Overview

Geothermal assessment for Latvia indicates craton_shield geological controls governing subsurface heat transport, yielding 5.4% of land area reaching the baseline target of 185°C at 5.5 km depth.

Uncertainty & Model Variance

Thermal inversion across Latvia shows consistent model convergence with constrained standard deviations across deep crustal layers.

Grid & Infrastructure Colocation

National electrical transmission coverage positions approximately 61.1% of prospective geothermal ground within 50 km of existing high-voltage corridors.

Geological & Basement Setting

Subsurface lithology is characterized by craton shield dynamics with median sediment thickness of 0.2 km and crustal thickness of 39.6 km.

Stored Heat Volume

Accessible thermal energy in place between 3 km and 7 km depth above 80°C totals 23.3 Zettajoules (ZJ).

Peer Comparison

Benchmarked against 237 global assessment jurisdictions, Latvia demonstrates competitive positioning across heat flow, infrastructure, and basement competence indicators.

Target Sensitivity Analysis

Screening at 150°C baseline at 5.5 km increases prospective territory, demonstrating substantial deep EGS resource headroom.

Screening Methodology, Parameters & Limitations

This screening assessment for Latvia is generated from Geothermal Radar Data Pack 2026.1 utilizing global 0.1° hex-grid thermal inversion across 718 model cells (land area: 64 589 km²). Baseline prospective criterion is defined as reaching 185°C at or above 5.5 km depth with surface temperature normalized to 15°C.

  • Screening estimates represent regional-scale heat in place and do not replace localized 3D seismic or exploratory drilling.
  • Model uncertainties expand in regions with sparse deep boreholes and complex thrust fault kinematics.
  • Grid proximity indicators reflect line-of-sight distance to high-voltage transmission and do not account for local substation thermal capacity.
Need Detailed Asset-Level Due Diligence?

Access 3D temperature grids, drilling cost curves, and micro-siting GIS layers.

Request Full Technical Dossier